Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[DeistPaladin]

I do not consider the gospel accounts to be "extremely sketchy second-hand claims."

If you do then that is fine.

This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is a matter of what we know. The Gospels are not "eye-witness accounts". At best, even if we go with the attributed authors who are established "by tradition", these are written by people who are following hearsay accounts.

Mark, who wrote the first Gospel and all others are based on his work, was a companion of Peter, who himself was not a witness to all the events related in Mark. We have hearsay on top of hearsay. Further, he wrote his account some four decades after the alleged events. Additionally, his work was altered over time. And this is your star witness.

Matthew lies repeatedly about what the OT says. I've quoted three whoppers he told in the first two chapters alone.

Luke was a companion of Paul, who only saw Jesus in a vision. The life story of Jesus is something Paul would have heard from others. Luke himself admits that he has compiled witness accounts to write his story, offering us anonymous hearsay.

John's Gospel, by all accounts the latest of all of them, features extremely advanced theology and tells a completely different story of a completely different Jesus.

Sorry but there's nothing here that would pass for a witness account in a court of law.

But I do want to agree with you on one thing. There does come a point where doubt is irrational. When the burden of proof has been met and there continues to be denial, it's the "skeptic" who is being unreasonable. Examples include those who claim to be "skeptics" about whether 9/11 was really done by terrorists, whether Obama was born in America, whether global warming is really happening or whether evolution explains the diversity of life.

Arguably, these are not really "skeptics", since they do hold belief systems without reason and against all reason. 9/11 Truthers, Tea Bagger Birthers, Climate Denialists and Creationists have their alternate ideas and their "skepticism" is born of a desire to hold those ideas.

Other examples of irrational doubt can be found in the Bible among the disciples of Jesus. The disciples continually acted like two dimensional dunces, obviously contrived characters used to build up suspense for Jesus' next miracle, like a background snare drum roll before a magician does a trick. It usually goes like this:

• Jesus: "I'm going to perform this miracle."
  
• Disciples: "But how is that even possible?"
  
• Jesus: "Oh ye of little faith." *performs miracle*
  
• Disciples: "Wow, that's amazing! Truly you are the Son of God!"
  
• Jesus: "I'm going to perform a miracle."
  
• Disciples: "But how is that even possible?"
  
• Jesus: "Oh ye of little faith." *performs miracle*
  
• Disciples: "Wow, that's amazing! Truly you are the Son of God!"
  
• Jesus: "I'm going to perform a miracle."
  
• Disciples: "But how is that even possible?"
  
• Etc.
  

My favorite was the Doubting Thomas story. Really, Tom? You saw Jesus raise the dead on three occasions. You heard Jesus tell you three times that he was going to be killed and would raise on the third day. You saw him killed just as he said would happen. You heard about him being raised just as he said it would happen. And you have doubts? Really?

These fictional examples of doubt are straw men of real skeptics for the Christians benefit. It's why you have your confusion about what skepticism is.

Skepticism is not an agenda. It's simply a realistic assessment that the burden of proof is not met.